By Richard Engel, Alastair Jamieson and Ghazi Balkiz, NBC News
The U.N. Security Council said Wednesday it was necessary to clarify reports from Syria's opposition that hundreds of civilians – including many women and children – have been killed in chemical weapons attacks.
The council, however, stopped short of demanding a probe by U.N. investigators in Syria -- although said it welcomed U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon's calls for one.
"There is a strong concern among council members about the allegations and a general sense that there must be clarity on what happened and the situation must be followed closely," Argentina's U.N. ambassador, Maria Cristina Perceval said following the emergency meeting.

Activists and rebel fighters accused Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces of firing chemical-tipped weapons into rebel-held areas near the capital, Damascus, in the early hours.
The Obama administration "strongly condemned" the reported use of the weapons which, if confirmed, would be by far the worst known use of poison gas during the country’s deadly civil war.

The White House called for Assad to allow an immediate and transparent U.N. investigation of the incident.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Wednesday that a U.N. team is on the ground in Syria to conduct the investigation and acknowledged that the United States does not have independent confirmation that chemical weapons were used.

“We are hopeful that the Assad regime will follow through on what they have claimed previously, that they are interested in a credible investigation that gets to the bottom of reports that chemical weapons have been used,” Earnest said.

Videos apparently showing the graphic and disturbing aftermath of the alleged attacks on the rebel-held eastern Damascus suburb of Ghouta were posted to social media but could not be independently verified. The clips showed children choking and vomiting, while adults writhed in agony.
State television denied the opposition claims, which it said were disseminated deliberately to distract United Nations chemical weapons experts who arrived in the country on Monday.

Musab abu Qutada, a spokesman for the local military council of the Free Syria Army, who is in the area near where the attacks took place, said the death toll had reached more than 1,200. NBC News could not verify the claim.
Several towns and villages to the east and north of the capital were attacked by surface-to-surface missiles beginning around 2 a.m. Wednesday (7 p.m. Tuesday ET), the rebel spokesman said.

Syrian activists inspect the bodies of people they say were killed by nerve gas in the Ghouta region near Damascus on Wednesday.

“The deceased and the wounded are in field hospitals,” he said in a Skype interview. “We have about 1,228 victims. We are in need of medicine. We are in need of medical staff.”
The “chemical bombardment” was so strong that doctors at the scene had also died from the effects of the gas, he said.
“There were some symptoms like numbing of the body, constricted pupils of the eye, foam coming out of the mouth, paleness of faces, shortness of breath," he said.
“The areas that were targeted were civilian areas, they are not military areas. They targeted women and children to apply pressure on the Free Syrian Army.”

The gas was heavy and sunk into basements, witnesses told NBC News. Some people lit tires on fire, hoping the smoke from the burning tires would offset the gas. The black smoke, however, only created more chaos and panic.
A doctor said some victims reported smelling a faint odor of insecticide at the time of the rocket attacks. Most of the victims were sleeping when the attacks took place.

The first rocket assaults on the eastern villages lasted roughly an hour; then, villages to the north began to be attacked in the same way -- surface-to-surface rockets that exploded to release a poison gas.

Conflicting death tolls from different sources could not immediately be reconciled by NBC News. Witness accounts are impossible to verify because Syria does not allow journalists to operate freely inside its borders.
Advertise | AdChoices

The opposition Local Coordination Committees in Syria put the death toll at more than 755, saying several areas had been hit by “shelling with poisonous gases.”

It said the areas hit included Ein Tarma and Zamalka in eastern Ghouta and Mouadamieh in western Ghouta.

Susan Ahmad, who lives just over one mile from the areas, described a smell in the air and reported having burning, red eyes and dizziness after the attacks.

“There is a very strange smell and it’s a very ugly one,” she told NBC News’ U.K. partner ITV News. “It’s nasty. You feel like there is something wrong in the air."

She added: “The death toll is likely to be higher and higher because don’t have enough [medicine] to save lives.”

Bayan Baker, a nurse at a field hospital in Douma, told Reuters that the death toll from the attack, collated from medical centers in the region, was 213.

"Many of the casualties are women and children. They arrived with their pupils dilated, cold limbs and foam in their mouths. The doctors say these are typical symptoms of nerve gas victims," she said.

Let us not resort bringing into question a matter of pure intellect because, by the sheer evidence of your last few posts, you lack the cognitive capability to debate these topics. You have blatantly ignored facts and, in general, don't have a ****ing clue when it comes to foreign policies. Your very first "point" in advocating our war in Iraq was Saddam showing antipathy and a lack of concern for our sanctions post-Desert-Storm. These are YOUR words right from your keyboard. You can play spin doctor any way you wish and be smug behind your computer screen but that doesn't dispel the fact that these are your words. You're entitled to your idiotic opinions....they're as dim as you are.

good day.

He gave you a list of reasons that, taken in totality, added up to a case for military intervention in his opinion.

You then addressed a single item from that list in isolation and proceeded to argue that said point wasn't enough to justify a war.

there's no need to address points that are complete fallacies; if you believe them/think they're factual, that's your affair, not mine. I, on the other hand, am absolutely against sending our troops into war zones over such flimsy issues. I am not an isolationist. Some things in the middle east have been justifiable, without question; but these damn leeches that sit behind their computer screens clamoring for more war/dropping bombs/sending in our forces over feeble, unjust causes drives me up the wall and makes me want to vomit.

I'm not even going to get into all this with a couple of 30,000 post posters on a message board. this is boring and distasteful.

1)I'm in no way an advocate for war in all of those places, but it doesn't take a genius to see that we have energy and trade interests throughout the middle east and that

2)we had an interest in stemming the spread of the Soviet sphere of influence in our neighborhood.

3)Narrowly defining "threat" to include only threats to our homeland soil and our citizens therein, is crap.

4)Welcome to the modern world were our economy is globally dependent and the power to inflict great damage is more portable than ever. Those rifles didn't do much to prevent 9/11, they won't deter foreign navies from blocking trade routes, and they won't make foreign governments give even a first thought, much less a second one, before they confiscate the overseas property of an American company or persecute American expatriates.

I'm by no means an isolationist, but I'd like to respond to these points.

By the way I am all for military action, when needed...as in the case of hitting the taliban - even in pakistan.

1) We do have energy interests , and while it is POSSIBLE that spending a large amount of money and maybe some lives on helping overthow Assad would help negotiate some better deals with Syria, it is HIGHLY unlikely. The likelihood is the rebels who would take over in the oncoming power vacuum would be moderate muslims at best coupled with extremists who would be anti Israel, and USA and be more than willing to keep the deals they have with Russia and China. I do not see how any intervention by us in Syria would help us on your 1st point, but maybe you can explain?

2) The keyword is HAD. Russia is still a thorn in our side, clearly..as they basically veto or block any action that would help the USA get a better position in terms of the Middle east and the energy we want from there...as well as any geographical foothold we might want (bases / airfields in proximity to pakistan, Iran & china).

But again, I do not see how intervention and helping the rebels in Syria will do much because the PEOPLE there by and large hate us. Changing from Assad to some other guy isn't going to change the fact that we aren't going to be setting up shop in Syria or expanding any real influence there, unless it is by force...and that is just going to be counter productive.

Our 'sphere of influence' would be better served by letting them hash this out on their own, and us not meddling in their affairs. Amd proving to all the people (not just half of them) that we aren't messing with their sovereign rights. Which ever side wins free and fair elections, we support and deal with ...as well as any political opposition groups who renounce violence....That way the opposition groups (which will be many) wont be able to point the finger at the winning regime and say they are puppets of the US.

This is simple. We just cant do that kind of shit any more, man. We need legitimacy seen by ALL SIDES. Not just the winner.

3) Just as narrowly defining 'threat' to only include direct threats to the homeland is stupid, so is defining Syria's problem as a threat to the USA. I agree we have to define threats, but Syria amd the multitude of unstable situations like syria in and of themselves do not pose a REAL threat to us. Now if there are some chemical weapons still that we are worried will fall in the wrong hands, sure, take the warehouse out etc....surgical strikes on REAL threats...OK..(see how isreal handles weapon shipments!).but the overall political big picture...we have to leave it alone as I stated in #2.

4) Again, as in # 3 we need to have a real threat before acting militarily. No foreign Navy (not even Iran) is stupid enough currently to block any route of ours. We can't compare Syria with 911 ....clearly because 911 WAS an attack on us. Syria is not really an ally or even much of a partner with the US. Yes it would be nice if they were, but striking them will only make it less likely in the long run. If a country were to actually **** with Americans, (like blocking routes or confiscating shit) then we would need to examine all actions with military force being on the table...I would agree. Until then.....leave Syria alone....

(*note I am not saying you disagree with any of these points , and heck, maybe you agree with all of them....... I am just examining these points in terms of the topic at hand --- Syria)

there's no need to address points that are complete fallacies; if you believe them/think they're factual, that's your affair, not mine. I, on the other hand, am absolutely against sending our troops into war zones over such flimsy issues. I am not an isolationist. Some things in the middle east have been justifiable, without question; but these damn leeches that sit behind their computer screens clamoring for more war/dropping bombs/sending in our forces over feeble, unjust causes drives me up the wall and makes me want to vomit.

I'm not even going to get into all this with a couple of 30,000 post posters on a message board. this is boring and distasteful.

cheers

I was talking about you saying that saul was "talking shit." I was not challenging your stance on FP.

__________________
“You may think RaiderH8r is just a thinker. But I’m not just a thinker. I’m a doer. Every day I go out there, and rev that engine, fire it up, grab a hold of that line between speed and chaos, and wrestle it to the ground like a demon cobra. And when the fear rises up in my belly, I use it. Fear is powerful, because it’s been there for billions of years. And it is good. And I use it. And I ride it; I ride it like a skeleton horse through the gates of hell.”

I'm by no means an isolationist, but I'd like to respond to these points.

By the way I am all for military action, when needed...as in the case of hitting the taliban - even in pakistan.

1) We do have energy interests , and while it is POSSIBLE that spending a large amount of money and maybe some lives on helping overthow Assad would help negotiate some better deals with Syria, it is HIGHLY unlikely. The likelihood is the rebels who would take over in the oncoming power vacuum would be moderate muslims at best coupled with extremists who would be anti Israel, and USA and be more than willing to keep the deals they have with Russia and China. I do not see how any intervention by us in Syria would help us on your 1st point, but maybe you can explain?

2) The keyword is HAD. Russia is still a thorn in our side, clearly..as they basically veto or block any action that would help the USA get a better position in terms of the Middle east and the energy we want from there...as well as any geographical foothold we might want (bases / airfields in proximity to pakistan, Iran & china).

But again, I do not see how intervention and helping the rebels in Syria will do much because the PEOPLE there by and large hate us. Changing from Assad to some other guy isn't going to change the fact that we aren't going to be setting up shop in Syria or expanding any real influence there, unless it is by force...and that is just going to be counter productive.

Our 'sphere of influence' would be better served by letting them hash this out on their own, and us not meddling in their affairs. Amd proving to all the people (not just half of them) that we aren't messing with their sovereign rights. Which ever side wins free and fair elections, we support and deal with ...as well as any political opposition groups who renounce violence....That way the opposition groups (which will be many) wont be able to point the finger at the winning regime and say they are puppets of the US.

This is simple. We just cant do that kind of shit any more, man. We need legitimacy seen by ALL SIDES. Not just the winner.

3) Just as narrowly defining 'threat' to only include direct threats to the homeland is stupid, so is defining Syria's problem as a threat to the USA. I agree we have to define threats, but Syria amd the multitude of unstable situations like syria in and of themselves do not pose a REAL threat to us. Now if there are some chemical weapons still that we are worried will fall in the wrong hands, sure, take the warehouse out etc....surgical strikes on REAL threats...OK..(see how isreal handles weapon shipments!).but the overall political big picture...we have to leave it alone as I stated in #2.

4) Again, as in # 3 we need to have a real threat before acting militarily. No foreign Navy (not even Iran) is stupid enough currently to block any route of ours. We can't compare Syria with 911 ....clearly because 911 WAS an attack on us. Syria is not really an ally or even much of a partner with the US. Yes it would be nice if they were, but striking them will only make it less likely in the long run. If a country were to actually **** with Americans, (like blocking routes or confiscating shit) then we would need to examine all actions with military force being on the table...I would agree. Until then.....leave Syria alone....

(*note I am not saying you disagree with any of these points , and heck, maybe you agree with all of them....... I am just examining these points in terms of the topic at hand --- Syria)

I'm glad you added that note at the end, because none of those points in my post was about Syria nor have I advocated any specific military action there under the current circumstances.

1. This was just a general statement about our interests in the region as contrasted with the RonPaulian view that we should withdraw completely and rely only on trade and diplomacy to keep the oil flowing and the trade routes open.

2. This was related to GloucesterChief's references to Grenada and Nicaragua. It has nothing to do with Syria although we do need to understand that Russia and China are both trying to increase influence in the Middle East as our influence wanes and that's not necessarily desirable.

3 & 4. This was a response to the narrow definition of threat that the RonPauls use (i.e. basically only threats to our homeland). I agree with your statements in this regard more than I disagree with them. The one area I disagree with at least in tone if not in fact is the idea that no one would interfere with trade routes. If we were to remove our navy from the region (not saying you'd advocate this), there would certainly be entities trying to disrupt trade routes. We see this with Somolian pirates even with our Navy patrolling. Iran has threatened to block or mine the Strait of Hormuz in it's disputes with both us and the Arabs on the penninsula. And Egypt is in a position to disrupt traffic through the Suez Canal if the wrong people were to come to power there. Thankfully, our Navy will continue to protect these trade routes for the foreseeable future.

Just thought I'd clarify what my post was about.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton